A one thousand-year-old history lesson awaits those who would deem the cutting edge wicked

Damascus steel was forged using a process
of carbon doping iron in a smelting and quenching process. This steel became famous almost a thousand years ago; it was said a Damascus sword would cut through falling silk, a rock, and then another piece of silk while still keeping its razor sharp edge.

The ability to make the Damascus steel was lost with the ages. Blademasters would often take the secret of the forging process to the grave rather than reveal its mysteries. Many were persecuted as heretics, others heralded as deities.

It's easy to say that perhaps the 1,000 Americans surveyed are just not that bright. Scheufele disagrees, stating, "They are rejecting it based on
religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They
are informed."

Scheufele believes that Americans who disprove of nanotechnology do not want humans "playing God." That is, man manipulating structures of one nanometer, one billionth of a meter, is akin to God manipulating the forces of the universe.

Science has always bordered on the fence of terrifying and mysterious. Civilization lost the secrets of Damascus steel making when then modern thinkers deemed it a practice of deus ex hominis.

Attempting to describe the morality of natural phenomena leads to an exercise in natural fallacy. Not once, in the history of mankind, has science ever been proven immoral -- and conversely -- nor has it ever been proven moral either.

Will society deitize nano-researchers as modern day Damascus blademasters, or will it learn to look beyond the meta-ethics of natural phenomena for a change?

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: It's easy enough to look up 2 x 10 on a chart also, but I wouldn't hire an elementary school teacher who couldn't do that one in her head.

Then be prepared to explain in a court room how the inability to do 2 x 10 in one's head is impairment to teaching little children.

quote: Having all airport codes in your head quite obviously allows an agent to work faster and with less error than someone who has to continually pause to look them up.

I doubt you'd be able to prove that in court, given the level of computerization. From what I've observed in airports, translating airport codes to cities is hardly a frequent task. And the potential cost of a mistake means you'd want your employees to NOT rely on their memory.

Meanwhile, it's trivial to show that the requirement has a disparate impact on blacks: in general they have poorer schooling compared to whites. I think there's an even chance the plaintiff would win this (it'll be settled, of course).

> "Then be prepared to explain in a court room how the inability to do 2 x 10 in one's head is impairment to teaching little children"

I don't need to, as passing a basic math test is now (thankfully) a requirement for all public-school teachers.

> "I doubt you'd be able to prove that in court, given the level of computerization"

On the contrary, its trivial to prove it. A computer lookup of the code requires an extra step, and extra keystrokes. That takes time.

In fact, that's the entire reason airport codes were created in the first place. It's a much more efficient system than trying to type names-- faster, and much less prone to error. Airport codes are also unique, which is invaluable for cities without unique names, or in cities with multiple airports.

quote: I don't need to, as passing a basic math test is now (thankfully) a requirement for all public-school teachers.

That's a bogus argument. Basic math is not doing arithmetics in one's head. Understanding of mathematical concepts is what matter for educational purpose, not speed.

quote: On the contrary, its trivial to prove it. A computer lookup of the code requires an extra step, and extra keystrokes. That takes time.

There's this thing called the bar-code reader. There is also this other thing called the relational database, which call up all the flight and passenger information based on the ticket number, including where he is going to and from.

quote: Then you've had your eyes closed.

If it's so blindingly obvious, then name one situation.

quote: So? If you can't do the job, its not up to the employer to school you, or deal with your incompetence. Correct your deficiency, then reapply for the job.

I don't know where you've been the last 40 years. Under the Civil Rights Act, it's the burden of the employer to show that a job requirement is reasonable. Disparate impact is in general enough to prove discrimination.

Sorry, but memorization of the basic multiplication tables is a critical math skill....which explains why every elementary school I know still teaches it. A teacher cannot easily teach what they do not know.

> "There's this thing called the bar-code reader. There is also this other thing called the relational database"

I guess you don't travel much. Passengers quite often change tickets, flight destinations, or even get entirely new tickets at the counter (via purchase, or for deadheading airline personnel who receive free ones). Also, there are also literally thousands of non-passenger related functions which require airline personnel to direct resources to particular airports.

Finally, even if true, your argument itself is invalid. Passengers quite often have questions for airline personnel which can be answered simply by knowing the destination. If an employee can answer that question just by seeing the code LAX or IUD, that's far faster than having to find a terminal, type in a lengthy ticket number, then wait for a result.

> "Disparate impact is in general enough to prove discrimination."

Oops -- this isn't correct. According to the 1991 Civil Rights Act, adverse impact is only illegal if the employer cannot show the criteria is "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity".

Furthermore, you're a little confused on proving disparate impact. You can't simply argue "blacks do poorer in school, therefore this is harder for them". You have to show statistical proof that blacks (or some other protected group) has actually been adversely impacted. In this case, that this criteria has caused them to actually be fired at a substantially higher rate than the general workforce.

I don't remember who said it, but it went something to the effect of, every day children are memorizing hundreds pokemon, but we can't expect them to know this?

Seriously, I think they should be able to have this as a requirement. Just like when I worked at mcdonalds for minimum wage I had to be able to take orders fast enough. Which did take memorization of the layout of my machine, and the different components of each and every sandwhich, and salad and everything else we did and made there.All of us minimum wage kids could do it. We even had people who had mental handicaps who could do that. So when people complain they get no sympathy.

Ok, hundreds of Pokemon, or 34,000+ codes. You're right, if someone REALLY applied themselves or has a special "rain man" ability, it surely can be done. I, myself, have probably memorized a foolish amount of stats on hundreds of baseball players for fantasy leagues. Even then I still make my own cheat sheet for drafting players. But I doubt even the top level airline execs have all 34,000+ codes memorized. A few thousand, maybe.

The reality is that such a person would have to derive some kind of enjoyment from memorizing these things. Kids really get into Pokemon and, as little sponges do, absorb as much information as they can. Just like me and fantasy baseball. Where's the enjoyment of memorizing thousands of airport codes? I'm sure there's someone out there who does get all excited about airport codes, just not usually the poor souls working at the check-in counter. Enjoyment doesn't seem to be what they are feeling.

What it comes down to is if you want to learn them or not. If someone valued their job, they would want to learn the parts their employer ask of them. Since they are asking them to learn airport codes, and not city bus routes, I see no problem.

> "If you think any airport personnel has the capacity to memorize this many codes at near minimum wage"

Oops - airline personnel are NOT required to memorize the whole database, only those codes to which their own airline flies (a few dozen to a couple hundred codes in most cases).

As for "near-minimum wage", the median salary for flight attendants in 2005 was $53,700/year, The lowest paid job at my airport is customer service agent, and the median salary even there is about 2.5X minimum wage, plus extensive benefits.

quote: the company has a policy that every employee must learn the world airport codes.

At first glance it doesn't say some or most of the codes. If it's just the routes the specific carrier flies, you're right, that's not too much to ask. I know about 30 off the top of my head and I only fly about twice a year.

Where I work there are a good number of things I have memorized but even more are written down. Just can't remember every last little thing especially if it's an infrequently used bit of info.

And even at 2.5x minimum wage plus extensive benefits, a very few of the CSA's I've come across would be doing well to know the code of their own airport. But I would guess this new rule should be weeding them out.

Obviously they aren't required to know them all, just the major ones that the airline flies out of. You're not going to be landing a Boeing 777 on a grass strip in Africa and wouldn't need to know the airport code for that.